The Questions Local Governments Are Asking About DOJ Accessibility Rules

Confusion, urgency, and a lot of PDFs. As the DOJ’s ADA Title II digital accessibility requirements take effect, local governments have a lot of questions.

What actually changes?

What needs immediate attention?

How can we make accessibility improvements without grinding operations to a halt?

In response to those questions, CivicPlus^® hosted a webinar featuring accessibility leaders and practitioners who work directly with local governments on web accessibility. The questions from attendees showed what many local governments are grappling with now: how enforcement works, what “good faith” really means, where exceptions apply, and how to prioritize accessibility efforts without losing transparency.

This blog breaks down the themes, questions, and insights shared during the webinar into clear, practical answers for local government teams navigating DOJ accessibility requirements.

DOJ Title II Accessibility Requirements: What Changed and Who It Applies To

What’s the DOJ’s ADA Title II Rule, and Who Must Comply?

The DOJ’s Title II rule clarifies how the ADA applies to digital services provided by state and local governments. It applies to municipalities, counties, school districts, and special districts, as well as digital content created or procured by those entities.

Under the rule, public-facing digital content must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, including websites, documents, multimedia, and other digital content used to deliver services (more on that below).

What Are the Key Compliance Deadlines?

Compliance timelines are based on population size:

• April 2026: Local governments serving 50,000 or more residents.
• April 2027: Local governments serving fewer than 50,000 residents and special districts.

What Does “WCAG 2.1 AA” Mean in Practice?

For local governments, WCAG 2.1 AA means making sure residents can access and use digital services regardless of how they navigate the web. It is less about meeting a single technical standard and more about removing barriers that prevent people from completing everyday tasks online.

In practice, this includes steps like:

• Providing alternative text so images convey the same information to screen reader users.
• Ensuring websites and forms can be navigated using a keyboard, not just a mouse.
• Using sufficient color contrast so text is readable for residents with low vision.
• Adding captions and audio descriptions so video content is accessible.
• Structuring PDFs so they follow a logical reading order instead of appearing as scanned images.

“The most important principle to keep in mind is to provide equivalent access. That is the first WCAG success criteria,” said Mike Paciello, Chief Accessibility Officer at AudioEye^®. Different users may experience content differently, but they should be able to access the same information and complete the same actions.

Enforcement, Risk, and Good-Faith Compliance

What Does a “Good-Faith Effort” Look Like?

In the context of web accessibility, a good-faith effort refers to a local government’s demonstrated commitment to meeting accessibility requirements through deliberate, ongoing action. It is not about intent alone. It is about being able to show, with evidence, that accessibility is being addressed in a structured and responsible way.

Local governments commonly demonstrate good-faith effort by:

• Conducting accessibility evaluations or audits to identify barriers.
• Creating and maintaining accessibility plans or roadmaps.
• Assigning clear responsibility for accessibility, potentially by appointing an accessibility coordinator or creating another designated role.
• Documenting prioritization decisions and remediation work.
• Responding promptly and thoughtfully to accommodation requests from residents.

Together, these actions show that accessibility is being treated as an ongoing operational responsibility, even when all digital content has not yet been fully remediated.

Does “100% Compliance” Exist? And How Is Accessibility Typically Enforced?

A common misconception is that compliance with DOJ accessibility requirements means achieving flawless accessibility across every digital asset at once. In reality, the DOJ’s 2024 ADA Title II web accessibility rule requires state and local governments’ web content and mobile apps to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA by specific deadlines. Still, it also recognizes narrow exceptions and clarifies that minor, non‑impactful failures may not constitute a violation.

Local governments are required by law to make their digital services accessible. What varies in practice is how compliance is evaluated over time, particularly for organizations managing large volumes of legacy content. Because of this, the rule allows some latitude in situations when an undue burden and fundamental alteration occur. In other words, depending on the entity’s resources and circumstances, such scenarios may be a reasonable defense in specific cases where full remediation is not feasible, even though the entity still has a broader obligation to provide accessible services.

Accessibility enforcement has historically been complaint-driven, meaning issues are often identified when residents encounter barriers. When that happens, the focus is typically on whether the organization can demonstrate that it:

• Understands the accessibility requirements that apply to its digital services.
• Is actively working toward WCAG 2.1 AA conformance.
• Has a plan to prioritize high-impact content and address barriers systematically.
• Documents its decisions, progress, and ongoing improvements.

So far, the DOJ and courts assess compliance based on whether a local government is taking accessibility seriously and working toward full conformance in a structured, documented way. The DOJ’s own guidance (and historical practice) emphasizes that accessibility is an ongoing obligation; public entities must stay compliant after their deadlines, not just “reach” compliance at a given date. In practice, regulators and courts tend to look more favorably on local governments that can show a structured, documented approach to accessibility, rather than just perfection on day one, so long as people with disabilities have access and any remaining failures are not significant or systemic.

Related: 9 Steps to Meet the DOJ’s Web Accessibility Ruling

What Are the Risks of Noncompliance?

While fines are possible, the more immediate and likely consequences of noncompliance are legal, operational, and reputational.

One of the most common risks is legal and consulting costs triggered by a resident complaint. When accessibility issues escalate, local governments may need to involve legal counsel, accessibility consultants, or third-party auditors. These costs can add up quickly, even when the underlying issue is narrow in scope.

Another risk is loss of flexibility. When accessibility concerns are addressed proactively, organizations can retain control over timelines and scope. When issues are resolved through litigation or formal enforcement, courts or regulators may impose remediation requirements and deadlines that are broader or more aggressive than what the organization would have chosen. These externally driven timelines can strain internal staff capacity and divert resources away from planned initiatives.

The experts also noted reputational impact. Accessibility barriers can undermine transparency and resident trust. For elected officials and staff alike, being perceived as unresponsive to accessibility needs can carry long-term consequences beyond any single complaint.

Why Do Documentation, Policies, and Clear Ownership Matter?

Documentation, policies, and designated responsibility help local governments change accessibility from an abstract requirement into a manageable, repeatable part of daily operations, and can help demonstrate measurable progress if compliance questions arise.

Documentation makes accessibility visible and defensible. It shows what decisions were made, what was prioritized, and what actions were taken over time. When questions arise from residents, regulators, or legal counsel, documentation provides a clear record that the organization understood its responsibilities and acted on them.

Internal accessibility policies provide consistency across departments and roles. Rather than relying on individual knowledge or one-time training sessions, policies establish shared expectations for how content is created, reviewed, published, and maintained. This is especially important in organizations where content responsibilities are distributed across departments.

Clear ownership keeps accessibility efforts moving forward. While accessibility remains a shared responsibility, defined ownership helps ensure issues are addressed. Assigning an accessibility coordinator or another designated staff member can create a reliable point of contact for questions, oversight, and progress tracking. This also helps support the kind of structured, good-faith effort discussed earlier.

Identify Accessibility Gaps Before They Become Problems

Understanding the rules is the first step. Knowing where accessibility gaps exist is the next.

If you’re unsure how your digital content stacks up to Title II or where to start with web accessibility compliance, get a free web accessibility scan. You’ll get a tailored report and insights from a CivicPlus web accessibility specialist with actionable strategies to improve your website or documents and support WCAG 2.1 AA compliance.

Disclaimer:
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. CivicPlus makes no guarantees as to the accuracy or suitability of this material and disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on it. Use of this content does not create any attorney-client or advisory relationship. You should consult your own legal counsel before adopting or implementing any policies. CivicPlus may update or withdraw this material at any time without notice.